social studies and history teachers’ uses of non-digital

8/8/2019 Social Studies and History Teachers’ Uses of Non-Digital

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-studies-and-history-teachers-uses-of-non-digital 1/21

Social Studies Research and Practice

www.socstrp.org

Volume 1, Number 3, Winter 2006

ISSN: 1933-5415

291

Social Studies and History Teachers’ Uses of Non-Digital

and Digital Historical Resources

John K. LeeGeorgia State University

Peter E. Doolittle

David HicksVirginia Tech

Abstract

A gap in the literature on digital history was explored through the use of a survey of 104 high

school social studies teachers, administered in a large urban/suburban school district in the

southeastern United States. The survey examined the extent to which social studies teachers were

using non-digital and digital historical resources and the ways in which they were using them.

Results indicated that social studies and history teachers were using primary historical sources,

but important questions remained regarding the nature of this use. Specifically, it was found that

while the teachers in this survey reported using digital and non-digital primary historicalsources in their classrooms, they did not report using these resources in a manner consistent

with literature-based best practices for social studies and history education.

Introduction

There is limited, existing research that examines the extent to which high school history

and social studies teachers are utilizing primary and secondary sources that are accessible from

digital, as opposed to non-digital (traditional), sources. This paper seeks to explore this gap in theliterature by reporting on the results of a comprehensive survey, administered in a large

urban/suburban school district in the southeastern United States. In our research, we examine the

extent to which teachers are using digital and non-digital historical resources and the ways inwhich they were using them. Specifically, we ask the following: To what extent has the

availability of online historical resources impacted history and social studies teachers’ uses of

primary (both digital and non-digital) sources in the classroom? Before presenting our findings,we present a conceptual framework which guides our research and considers the literature on (a)

teaching and learning of history and social studies and (b) current efforts to integrate technology

into the history and social studies.



Social Studies Research and Practice Lee, Doolittle, and Hicks

Conceptual Framework and Literature Review

Technology toward a Process: A Conceptual Framework

The term “technology in schools” has long been viewed as an educational

panacea in which students would be able to learn almost in spite of their teacher, andcountless school reform measures have been suggested and mandated that advocate stateof the art technology. “State of the art technology” has evolved from motion pictures, to

radio, television, microcomputers, educational software, and static Web pages to Internet

sites that foster interaction and communication between students and teachers. For each

development, there has been a parallel prediction that its use would revolutionizeteaching and learning. However, their promises and potential have not always proven

true—not just today but in the past. (Friedman and Hicks, 2006, p. 248)

As the above quote suggests, care always needs to be taken in succumbing to overly naïve and

uncritical assumptions that current and emerging technologies are destined to transform teaching

and learning in the 21

st

century. It is important to acknowledge that a great deal of literature onintegrating technology in the social studies appears to have been initially overly optimistic as

recently suggested by McNight and Robinson (2006) and illuminated in the work of Larry Cuban

(2001). However, care also needs to be taken to avoid dismissing the efficacy of education

technologies “simply because they have failed to meet the optimistic claims of computeradvocates” (Friedman & Hicks, 2006, p. 250).

The origins of this research grew out of the recognition of the importance of going

beyond detailing the promise and potential of current and emerging technologies within thesocial studies and toward carefully and critically investigating how teachers and teacher

educators are, or are not, integrating educational technologies in their classrooms, as well asexamining how technology is being used as a tool to scaffold student learning in the social

studies classroom (Friedman & Hicks, 2006). Indeed, current educational technologies

reposition existing opportunities for students to engage in the doing of history in ways consistentwith what Barton and Levstik (2004) describe as the analytic stance and what Seixas (2000)

terms as a disciplinary knowledge orientation. Such a stance, or orientation, recognizes the

importance of teaching the disciplinary processes of knowing and learning history in terms of asking historical questions, critically investigating accounts within the context they were

originally developed, and corroborating various pieces of evidence in order to develop historical

interpretations.

Along these theoretical lines, Mason, Berson, Diem, Hicks, Lee, and Dralle, (2000)developed a set of guidelines for the use of technology in social studies and history classrooms.

These guidelines suggest five simple principles for infusing technology in the classroom. We

borrow from these five principles three framing ideas:1. The use of technology should extend learning beyond what could be done without

technology;

2. Technology use should occur in existing socially and educational meaningfulcontexts; and

3. Technology use should foster the development of participatory and critical

democratic experiences.

292




At the core of such principles is a recognition that “technology must be used to create authenticexperiences that link new knowledge to prior knowledge, in socially interactive environments

where questions being pursued are relevant to the student” (Doolittle, Hicks, & Lee, 2002, p. 24).

If this is to occur—for such a change is simply not inevitable—teachers, teacher educators, andstudents need to be prepared, as well as ready, willing, and able to use technology as a tool to

foster autonomous and authentic inquiry within the social studies classroom.

Historical Thinking: Teaching and Learning History and Social Studies

An increasing body of literature has brought into question the utility and purpose of

teaching traditional transmission oriented history and social studies (Goodlad, 1985; Lee, 1998;Spencer & Barth, 1992; VanSledright, 1995; VanSledright, 2002). The National Council for the

Social Studies (1994), the National Center for History in the Schools (1996), and more recently,

the American Historical Association (2003) have all recognized the importance of teachersengaging students with primary sources in the classroom. The current literature on best or wise

practice (Davis, 1997) in the history classroom encourages the use of primary sources to support

historical inquiry (Hartzel-Miller, 2001; Sexias, 2000; Wilson & Wineburg, 1988). Such practicerequires skilled and knowledgeable teachers who can help students develop historical questions,

analyze and corroborate various forms of historical evidence, and construct their own historical

interpretations (Hartzler-Miller, 2001; Levstik 1996; Levstik & Barton, 2001).

Numerous researchers have also identified potential roadblocks to engaging students inthe doing of history (McDiarmid & Vinten-Johansen, 1993; VanSledright, 2000; Wilson &

Wineburg, 1988). The influence of tests and standards that pay little attention to historical skills

has been identified as a problem by several researchers (Grant, 2000; Grant, Gradwell,Lauricella, Pullano, & Tzetzo, 2002; VanSledright, 1996, 2002). VanSledright (2002) is also

concerned that teachers believe that most students are neither willing, nor able, to deeply engagewith primary sources. These concerns may explain why few teachers seem to consistently engage

students in the doing of history. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

found that 70% of students nationwide who took the 8 th grade National U.S. history test and 77%of those who took the 12th grade test reported they used primary sources twice a month or less.

Interestingly, the recently released evaluation of Teaching American History Grants brought into

question the participants’ abilities and readiness to organize and provide instruction that wentbeyond the coverage of content in terms of teaching students the disciplinary knowledge

necessary to engage in the doing of history.

While TAH teacher work products demonstrated teachers’ knowledge of facts, they alsorevealed participants’ limited ability to analyze and interpret historical data. Findings

from the exploratory study of teacher work products (lesson plans and research papers)

indicated that while teachers had a firm grasp of historical facts and some lower-levelhistorical thinking skills, they had difficulty interpreting and analyzing historical

information. Although the teacher work products reviewed ranged in quality, nearly all

products earned low scores on historical analysis and interpretation. (SRI International,2005, p. xv)

293




Digital History: Technological Applications in History and Social Studies Education

Several social studies education researchers suggest that integrating technology into

social studies classrooms, specifically web-based technologies, has the potential to encourageactive student inquiry (Martorella, 1998; Mason et al., 2000; Van Fossen, 1999; Warren, 2000;

Whitworth & Berson, 2003). One form of inquiry in social studies, authentic historical inquiry, issuggested by some researchers to be particularly affected by the use web-based resources(Berson, Lee, & Stuckart, 2001; Doolittle & Hicks, 2003; Lee, 2002; Milson, 2002; Saye &

Brush, 1999; Shiveley & Van Fossen, 1999). However, some literature suggests that the

excitement about the integration of technology into social studies and history might be overdone

(Cuban, 2001; Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001; Martorella, 1998; Wilson & Notar, 2003).Regardless of whether the potential of technology to influence social studies and history, as

reported in the literature, is overdone or not, technology usage in K-12 settings remains less than

we might expect given the almost 20 billion dollars invested in the last ten years (Becker, Ravitz,& Wong 1999; Wilson & Notar, 2003).

Despite the limits of technology in social studies and history instruction and learning, the

theoretical, and to some extent practical, practices of researching, teaching, and learning historyseem to have been genuinely affected by technological developments (Ayers, 1999; Barlow,

1998; Lee, 2002; Rosenzweig, 2001; Schrum, 2000). Important structural differences between

digital and non-digital historical resources—including the manner in which documents are

organized, new indexing and searching capabilities, and improved translations—enhance theprospects for using digital resources in K-12 classrooms (Barlow, 1998; Davidson, 1999;

Johnson, 2000; Lee, 2002; Schrum, 2000; Wynne, 2001). Given these prospects, data on the

extent of use of digital and non-digital historical resources is needed to determine how socialstudies and history instruction is being impacted by technological developments related to

history document presentation.The current study was conducted within the context of existing bodies of research that

sought to (a) describe and quantify the extent of technological integration, and (b) magnify the

affordances of technology. This study seeks to consider pedagogical attitudes and dispositionstoward technological integration given the existing literature on historical thinking and digital

history. This study was guided by the following over-arching questions:

1. Are high school history and social studies teachers using digital technologies to enhance

learning in their classrooms?

2. In what ways are high school history and social studies teachers using digital

technologies to enhance learning in their classrooms?

Method

Sample Selection

The sampling frame for this study involved surveying high school social studies teachers,grades 9-12. The working population included all high school social studies teachers (N = 104)

in a single, racially diverse county—45.3% White, 44.6% Black, and 5.9% Hispanic (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2002)—in the southeastern United States. Of the 104 surveys delivered, 73surveys were completed, returned, and used in the data analysis, resulting in a 70% response rate.

294




The sample of 73 surveys was comprised of 38 males and 35 females with a mean participantage of 38.6 years and a mean number of years teaching of 12.8. The highest educational

attainment of participants included 7 doctoral degrees, 43 master’s degrees, and 20 bachelor’s

degrees. In addition, all respondents taught history at least part of the day, with the vast majorityof teachers (89%) teaching either United States History or World History.

Survey Structure and Design

Following an initial pilot survey examining the impact of online primary sources on the

teaching of social studies with a group of social studies teachers in a master’s social studies

education degree program, the current survey was constructed. The current survey is comprisedof three sections: a demographics section, a section on web-based primary historical source use,

and a purpose of social studies and best pedagogical practices in teaching social studies and

history section (see Tables 1-8). In redesigning the survey, we recognized the importance of determining teachers’ beliefs about the purpose(s) of studying history as well as teachers’

perceptions of why their students use historical sources. The new questions were designed to

determine respondents’ beliefs and perceptions, given research on the purposes of historyeducation (e.g., Barr, Barth, & Shermis, 1977; Evans, 1988, 1989, 1994; Levstik & Barton,

2001b; Seixas, 2000) and best pedagogical practices in teaching and learning history (e.g., AHA,

2003; Bain, 2000; Goodlad, 1985; Hartzler- Miller, 2001; NCSS, 1994; Levstik & Barton,

2001b).In designing the survey questions, we recognized an inherent limitation of survey

research, whereby teachers report what they value or what they think others value, not

necessarily what they actually do in class (Fowler, 2002). Despite such a limitation, common toall surveys, the survey provides baseline data that can serve as an entry point for further research

into teachers’ purposes for and uses of digital and non-digital primary historical sources. Inaddition, we did not explicitly provide a definition of historical inquiry or digital historical

resources; rather, we provided a range of statements within the survey designed to reveal the

extent to which teachers’ understandings and activities reflect the literature on historical inquiry.

Data Analysis

The survey consisted of 84 questions distributed across three areas: demographic

information, purposes of history and the uses of historical primary sources, and web-based

(digital) historical primary source use. The overall alpha reliability of the survey was .79. The

analyses of these data included descriptive statistical analyses (e.g., mean and standarddeviation), and tests of significance (e.g., repeated measures analysis of variance and contrasts).

All analyses of variance (ANOVA) were corrected for sphericity using the Greenhouse-Geisser

adjustment, and all mean comparisons were adjusted at α = .05 using the Bonferroni post hocprocedure.

Results

The results of the survey focus on the purpose of teaching history, the use of traditionalhistorical primary sources, and the use of web-based (digital) historical primary sources. The

following analysis is divided into three sections: (a) the purpose of teaching history and using

295




historical primary sources; (b) a delineation of web-based historical primary source use, and (c)reasons why teachers do not use web-based historical primary sources. Within each of these

three main sections, all of the actual survey questions in sections two and three of the survey (the

uses of historical primary sources and web-based historical primary source use) are addressed.

The Purpose of Using Historical Primary Sources

Why do your students learn history? Respondents indicated that of the reasons listed, the

most ubiquitous reason for teaching history was clearly the desire to connect the past and the

present (see Table 1). Specifically, 97.1% of the teachers rated connecting the past and the

present as Important or Very Important . At least three-quarters of respondents also supported therationales of acquiring basic facts, developing historical inquiry skills, making historical

generalizations, understanding the place of America in world history, and developing a sense of

historical time. These results suggest two primary findings. First, teachers who completed thesurvey indicated that each reason listed was at least important, if not very important. Second, the

most dominant reason for teaching history among the respondents is to connect the past and the

present.

Why should students read and analyze historical primary sources? Respondents

indicated three dominant reasons for analyzing primary sources. These reasons were as follows:

(a) creating a context for developing historical thinking skills; (b) providing a sense of theconditions of the period under study, and (c) understanding the essential facts, concepts, and

generalizations that underlie historical knowledge (see Table 2). Less well supported were the

reasons of having students consider or reconsider historical truths and providing informationnecessary for success on standardized tests. These results indicate that while two-thirds of

respondents support the use of primary sources to question historical truths and prepare forstandardized test success, they see these reasons as being much less important than developing

historical thinking skills, providing students with a sense of the conditions of a particular time,

and understanding basic facts.

How often do your students engage in the use of historical primary sources and from

where do you find sources? Less than half of the teachers in our survey indicated that they tendto use historical primary sources in their classrooms more than once a week (41.0%); a third

indicated that they use historical primary sources once a week (32.9%), and only a quarter of the

respondents indicated that they use historical primary sources a few times a year (26.1%).

Further, when asked from where they obtained their historical primary sources, the vast majorityof teachers indicated they obtained their historical primary sources from textbooks (91.7%) and

the web (84.9%), while fewer teachers obtained their historical primary sources from books of

primary sources (63.0%) or resource packets (54.2%) (see Table 3). These results indicate thatteachers report that they are only occasional users of historical primary sources; however, when

they do use these sources, they obtain them primarily from textbooks and the web.

How often do your students engage in historical primary source analysis activities?

Respondents were fairly clear in the analysis activities they foster in their students. Teachers who

completed this survey clearly favor analyzing primary sources to identify key individuals, events,or ideas; detect and evaluate bias, distortion, or propaganda; compare and contrast details across

296




multiple sources (see Table 4). Specifically, more than half of the teachers in this surveyindicated that they engage in these activities very often or often, while less than a third of

respondents indicated that very often or often, they have students analyze primary sources to

uncover the context in which a source was created or to assess a source for credibility, authority,and authenticity. This lack of support for engaging students in context and credibility analyses is

important, given the research literature on the importance of sourcing and contextualizingprimary historical sources (Wineburg, 1991).

How often do you use digital and non-digital historical texts, images, or audio/video

recordings? Almost two-thirds of respondents reported frequent use of digital and non-digital

historical texts and images. In contrast, less than half of the respondents reported frequent use of digital and non-digital historical audio/video recordings. The results from this question were

analyzed differently than the rest of the results in the study due to the nature of the two related

questions (i.e., How often do you use non-digital historical primary sources? and How often doyou use digital historical primary sources?). The results indicated that overall, respondents used

non-digital historical primary sources more than digital historical primary sources, F(1,35) =

19.67, MSE = 8.78, p < .05, and that respondents used historical texts and images more thanhistorical videos regardless of where the sources originated, digital or non-digital, F(2,70) =

13.78, MSE = 1.31 p < .05. Subsequent to this analysis, a series of contrasts were conducted to

investigate the possible mean differences between digital or non-digital historical texts, images,

and videos. The results of these contrast analyses indicated that respondents used non-digitalhistorical texts more often than digital historical texts, non-digital historical images more often

than digital historical image, and non-digital historical videos more often than digital historical

videos. Overall, these findings indicate that the teachers who completed this survey tend to usehistorical texts and images more than audio/video recordings and that the origin of these sources

is more often non-digital than digital or particularly web-based.

A Delineation of Web-based Digital Historical Primary Source Use

How often, and why, do you access historical primary sources online? There is a clear

indication that respondents are only occasional users of the web for the acquisition and

instructional use of primary historical sources (see Table 3 and Table 5). Specifically, onlyslightly more than half of the respondents (57.4%) indicated that they very often or often

accessed the web to print images and text, and less than half of the teachers (44.3%) indicated

that they very often or often accessed the web to identify web sites for students' use (see Table 5).

Additionally, only a third of the respondents indicted that they very often or often identified websites for students to use in class (35.3%) or saved specific sections of sources for later use

(30.2%).

How often and for what reasons have you accessed specific history or social studies

web sites? Respondents indicated that they were mostly unfamiliar with and therefore never used

three well-developed and notable history web sites. Specifically, the vast majority of respondentshad neither heard of the Library of Congress' American Memory site nor the University of

Virginia's Valley of the Shadow site (see Table 6). In addition, less than a third of the respondents

had used the United States Government's National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) site for any reason. If the teachers who completed this survey are not using high-quality

297




and high-profile websites such as American Memory, Valley of the Shadow, or National Archives

and Records Administration, what sites are they using for accessing web-based historical

primary sources? When asked what sites they used to access historical primary sources,

respondents’ top responses were as follows: (a) governmental sites such as the Department of

Education (n = 9); (b) television sites such as the History Channel (n = 8), and (c) news sites

such as Washington Post (n = 7). These findings indicate that teachers are not using socialstudies and history digital libraries and repositories to obtain their historical primary sources butrather more culturally popular web sites.

Reasons why teachers do not use web-based historical primary sources

What changes would increase your use of web-based historical primary sources? The

likelihood of respondents using online historical primary sources would be increased by more

web accessible computers in the classroom and school, more time in the curriculum devoted tothe study of historical documents, and fewer standards and standardized tests (see Table 7).

Specifically, almost two-thirds of the respondents indicated that more web accessible computers,

more time to study historical documents, and fewer standards and standardized tests wereimportant to influencing their use of primary sources in the classroom. Less well supported was

training on locating primary sources on the web and training on using primary sources. Finally,

respondents indicated that more training on using the web in class was not a factor likely to

increase their overall use of primary sources in the classroom. These results indicate that in orderto use more historical primary sources, teachers desire more web-accessible computers with time

to use them and less training for accessing the web or locating and using primary sources.

What are your overall perceptions of using primary historical sources online? Respondents clearly indicate that the most significant effect of the web is access to previouslyunattainable sources and the ability to compare these sources (see Table 8). To a lesser extent,

respondents acknowledged that using resources from the web increases class preparation time,

provides rich historical experiences, increases the variety of sources used, changes one's use of primary sources, and allows for more control over sources. Finally, two-thirds of the respondents

strongly disagreed or disagreed that there is no difference in teaching with or without web-based

historical primary sources and that locating useful sources on the web is frustrating. Overall,these results indicate that the teachers believe that the web is a valuable tool for accessing

previously unattainable sources and making source comparisons and that the variety of sources

available provide for rich historical experiences but at the cost of increased class preparation

time.

Conclusions and Implications

Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, reformers, who targeted ineffective and

uninteresting history classes, argued for the inclusion of more authentic and meaningful primary

historical sources as part of the process of engaging students in the doing of history (see Yarema,2002). Similarly, researchers in social studies and history education are calling for a shift away

from a fact-driven approach and toward an inquiry-based approach to social studies and history

education (Doolittle & Hicks, 2003; Lee, 1998; Seixas, 2000; VanSledgright, 2002). Finally,there is call for the use of technology, specifically, the use of web-based digital historical

298




primary sources, in the pursuit of this authentic and meaningful historical inquiry (Barlow, 1998;Lee, 2002; Mason & Hicks, 2002). As Dean Cantu and Warren Wilson (2003) note “with the

growing number of technology and Internet proficient students in middle schools and high

schools…the need for digital pedagogues in history classrooms is growing exponentially” (p. ix).This study provides one piece of evidence that history teachers are using historical

primary sources in their classrooms, yet important questions remain regarding whether the use of these historical primary sources is for acquisition of facts or the pursuit of inquiry, and whethertechnology is being used to facilitate this pursuit. Specifically, although the teachers in this

survey did broadly agree that developing their students’ historical thinking skills was as

important as the acquisition of basic facts, the historical primary sources most frequently used by

respondents were taken from textbooks not from websites dedicated to providing historicalprimary sources. Unfortunately, these textbook-based sources are typically short or excerpted

and not set within the historical milieu of the original document. In addition, when historical

primary sources were used, they were used more often as evidence of key individuals, events,and ideas, and to a much lesser extent for comparing and contrasting details across multiple

sources or evaluating the credibility, authority, authenticity, and completeness of primary

sources— central elements of historical inquiry (Wineburg, 1991; Seixas, 2000).Thus, while teachers expressed an equal valuation of the importance of the acquisition of

basic historical facts and the development of historical inquiry with the ability of historical

primary source to facilitate both the understanding of facts, concepts, and generalizations, and

the development of historical thinking skills, teachers generally used non-digital, rather thandigital, collections of historical primary sources. This lack of use of digital collections of

historical primary sources was evident in teachers’ lack of awareness of well-known and

substantial digital historical primary source collections (e.g., Library of Congress AmericanMemory). However, this lack of use of digital collections of historical primary sources was not

indicative of a lack of valuation as more than three-quarters of teachers indicated that access todigital collections of historical primary sources allowed for the use of previously unattainable

sources, provided a valuable tool for comparing sources, increased the variety of sources used in

the class, and supplied rich historical experiences. Interestingly, most teachers in this studyviewed the impediments to using digital historical primary sources as external. That is, teachers

indicated a desire for more computers with access to the web, more time in the curriculum for the

use of historical primary sources, and less standardized testing. The importance of these externalimpediments was in contrast to a lack of importance posited for the need for more training on

locating and using historical primary sources.

Neither digital nor non-digital historical primary sources will have a major impact in the

social studies or history classroom until teachers make more active use of the sourcesthemselves. Given the usage patterns of primary historical sources reported by the teachers in

this survey, additional web access, increased class time, and fewer standardized tests must be

coupled with a shift in teachers’ dispositions toward authentic inquiry with the broad and activeuse of primary historical sources. Further research is required to explore how the frequency of

use, number of sources used in a lesson, and the depth of use of historical primary sources differs

when using textbook-based primary sources and digital historical primary sources.

299

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html







References

American Historical Association (2003). Benchmarks for professional development . Washington

DC: Author. Retrieved March 24, 2004, from:http://www.theaha.org/teaching/benchmarks.htm

Ashby, R., Lee, P. & Dickinson, A. (1997). How children explain the “why” of history: TheChata research project on teaching history. Social Education 61(1), 17-21.Ayers, E.L. (1999). History in hypertext . Retrieved March 6, 2004, from

http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/vcdh/Ayers.OAH.html .

Bass, R. (2002). The garden in the machine: The impact of American Studies on New

technologies. Retrieved March 6, 2004, fromhttp://www.georgetown.edu/bassr/garden.html#novice

Barlow, J.G. (1998). Historical research and electronic evidence: Promises and practice. In D.A.

Trinkle (Ed.), Writing, teaching, and researching history in the electronic age (pp. 194-225). Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe Inc.

Barton, K. (1997). "I just kinda know”: Elementary students' ideas about historical evidence.

Theory and Research in Social Education, 25(4), 407-430.Barton, K., & Levstik, L. (2004) Teaching History for the Common Good. Mahwah, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Becker, H., Ravitz, J.L., & Wong, Y. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of

computers and software. Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 national survey:

Report #3. Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations University

of California at Irvine and University of Minnesota [Online] Retrieved March 6, 2004,

from http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/findings/ComputerUse/html/startpage.htmBerson. M.J. (1996). Effectiveness of computer technology in social studies: A review of the

literature. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 486-499.Berson, M.J. Cruz, B.C., Duplass, J.A., & Johnston, J.H. (2001). Social studies and the internet .

New York: Merril Prentice Hall.

Berson, M.J., Lee, J.K., & Stuckart, D.W. (2001). Promise and practice of computer technologiesin the social studies: A critical analysis. In W. B. Stanely (Ed.), Critical issues in social

studies research for the 21st

century (pp. 209-229). Greenwich, CT: Information Age

Publishing.Cantu, D., & Wilson, W.J. (2003). Teaching history in the digital classroom. New York: M.E.

Sharpe.

Crocco, M.S. (2001). Leveraging constructivist learning in the social studies classroom.

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online series], 1(3), 386-394. Retrieved March 24, 2004, from

http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss3/currentissues/socialstudies/article2.htm

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge,Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Cuban, L., Fitzpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high

school classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.Davis, O.L. (1997). Editorial: Beyond "Best Practices" toward wise practices. Journal of

Curriculum and Supervision, 13(1), 1-5.

300

http://www.theaha.org/teaching/benchmarks.htm

http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/vcdh/Ayers.OAH.html

http://www.georgetown.edu/bassr/garden.html#novice

http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/findings/Internet-Use/startpage.htm



http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/findings/Internet-Use/startpage.htm

http://www.georgetown.edu/bassr/garden.html#novice

http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/vcdh/Ayers.OAH.html

http://www.theaha.org/teaching/benchmarks.htm




Davison, G. (1997). History and hypertext. The Electronic Journal of Australian and New

Zealand History. Retrieved March 6, 2004, from

http://www.jcu.edu.au/aff/history/articles/davison.htm#note5

Doolittle, P.E. (2001). The need to leverage theory in the development of guidelines for usingtechnology in social studies teacher preparation: A reply to Crocco and Mason et al.

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 1(4). Retrieved March 6, 2004, fromhttp://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss4/currentissues/socialstudies/article2.htm

Doolittle, P. & Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the use of

technology in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 31(1), 72-104.

Ehman, L.H., & Glenn, A.D. (1991). Interactive technology in the social studies. In J.P. Shaver(Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 513-522). New

York: Macmillan Publishing.

Fowler, F.J. (2002). Survey research methods (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Friedman, A.M. & Hicks, D. (2006). The state of the field: Technology, social studies, & teacher

education. A “concise discussion” on a sprawling and evolving field. Contemporary

Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6 (2), 246-258. Retrieved July 8

2oo6, fromhttp://www.citejournal.org/vol6/iss2/socialstudies/article1.cfm

Goodlad, J. (1985). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Grant, S.G. (2000). Teachers and tests: Exploring teachers’ perceptions of changes in the New

York state testing program. Educational Policy Analysis Archive, 8(14). Retrieved March6, 2004, from http://epaa.asu.edu/eppa/v8n14.html

Grant, S.G., Gradwell, J., Lauricella, A.M., Pullano, L., & Tzetzo, K. (2002). When increasing

stakes need not mean increasing standards: The case of the New York state global historyand geography exam. Theory and Research in Social Education, 30(4), 488-515.

Hartzler-Miller, C. (2001). Making sense of “best practice” in teaching history. Theory and

Research in Social Education, 29(4), 672-695.

Hicks, D., Doolittle, P. & Lee, J. (2002). Information technology, constructivism, and social

studies teacher education. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for

information technology and teacher education international conference 2002.

Hope, W.C. (1996). It’s time to transform social studies teaching. The Social Studies, 87 (4), 149-

151.Johnson, R. (1998). Historical research online: A new ball game. In D. A. Trinkle (Ed.), Writing,

teaching, and researching history in the electronic age (pp. 183-193). Armonk, New

York: M. E. Sharpe Inc.

Lee, J.K. (2002). Digital history in the history/social studies classroom. The History Teacher,

43(4), 503-518.

Lee, P. (1998) Making Sense of Historical Accounts. Canadian Social Studies, 32(1), 52-54

Levstik, L. (1996). Negotiating the history landscape. Theory and Research in Social Education,

24(4), 393-397.

Levstik, L., & Barton. K. (2001). Doing history: Investigating with children in elementary and

middle schools. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Leinhardt, G, Stainton, C., Virji, S.M., & Odoroff, E. (1994). Learning to reason in history:

Mindlessness to mindfulness. In M. Carretero & J. Voss (Eds.) Cognition and

instructional process in history and social sciences (pp.131-158). Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

301



http://www.citejournal.org/vol6/iss2/socialstudies/article1.cfm

http://epaa.asu.edu/eppa/v8n14.html

http://epaa.asu.edu/eppa/v8n14.html







Mason, C., Berson. M., Diem, R., Hicks, D., Lee, J., & Dralle, T. (2000). Guidelines for usingtechnology to prepare social studies teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and

Teacher Education [Online serial], 1(1), 107-116. Retrieved March 6, 2004, from

http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/socialstudies/article1.htm Mason, C. & Hicks, D. (2002) Digital history as rich information: Access and analysis. In A.

Loveless and B. Dore (Eds.) ICT in the Primary School. Philadelphia: Open UniversityPress.Martorella, P. (1998). Technology and the social studies or which way to the sleeping giant?

Theory and Research in Social Education, 25(4), 511-14.

McDiarmid, W.G. & Vinten- Johansen, P. (1993). The teaching and learning of history: From

inside out . East Lansing, Michigan: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.McKnight, D. & Robinson, C. (2006). From technologia to technism: A critique on technology’s

place in education. THEN: Journal 3, Retrieved July 17, 2006, from

http://thenjournal.org/feature/116/ Milson, A.J. (2002). The internet and inquiry learning: Integrating medium and method in a sixth

grade social studies classroom. Theory and Research in Social Education, 30(3), 330-

353.National Center for History in the Schools (1996). National history standards. Los Angeles:

National Center for History in the Schools.

National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations for excellence: Curriculum

standards for social studies. Washington, DC: National Council for Social Studies.Ravitch, D. & Finn, C.E. (1987). What Do Our 17 Year Olds Know? A report on the first

national assessment of history and literature. New York: Harper and Row.

Rosenzweig, R. (2001). The road to Xanadu: Public and private pathways on the history web. Journal of American History, 88(2), 548-579.

Saye, J.W., & Brush, T. (1999). Student engagement with social issues in a multimedia-supported learning environment. Theory and Research in Social Education, 27 (4), 472-

504.

Schug, M.C. (2003). Teacher-centereed instruction. In J. Leming, L. Ellington, & K. Porter-Magee (Eds,) Where did social studies go wrong? (pp. 94-110). Washington DC: Thomas

B. Fordham Foundation.

Schug, M.C., Western, R.D., & Enochs, L.G. (1997). Why do social studies teachers usetextbooks? The answer may lay in economic theory. Social Education, 61(2), 97-101.

Schrum, K. (2000). Making history on the web matter in the classroom. The History Teacher,

34(3), 327-338.

Schick, J.B.M. (1990). Teaching history with a computer: A complete guide for college

professors. Chicago: Lyceum Books.

Seixas, P. (2000). Scweigen! Die kinder! or Does postmodern history have a place in the

schools? In P.N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and

learning history (pp. 19-37). New York: New York University Press.

Shiveley, J., & Van Fossen, P. (1999). Critical thinking and the internet: Opportunities for the

social studies classroom. The Social Studies, Jan/Feb, 42-46.Spencer, J.M., & Barth, J.L. (1992). The deconstruction of history in the public school

classroom. Social Education, 56 (1), 13-14.

302


http://thenjournal.org/feature/116/

http://thenjournal.org/feature/116/





SRI International (September 2005) Evaluation of the Teaching American History Program.

Washington D.C., U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation, and

Policy Development. Available from

www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/us-history/teaching-exec-sum.htmlVan Fossen, P. (Nov. 1999). Teachers would have to be crazy not to use the internet! A

preliminary analysis of the use of the internet/www by secondary social studies teachersin Indiana. Paper presented at the 79th

Annual Meeting of the National Council for theSocial Studies (Orlando, Fl.), ED 438 205.

VanSledright, B. (1995). “I don’t remember—the ideas are all jumbled in my head.” Eighth

graders’ reconstructions of colonial American history. Journal of Curriculum and

Supervision, 10(4), 317-345.VanSledright, B. (1996) Closing the gap between disciplinary and school history? Historian as

high school history teacher. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in Research on Teaching, vol. 6

(pp. 257-289). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.VanSledright, B. (2002) Confronting history’s interpretive paradox while teaching fifth graders

to investigate the past. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 1089-1115.

Whelan, M. (1997). The historical subject matter that ultimately matters most. Theory and Research in Social Education, 25(4), 506-509.

Whitworth, S. & Berson, M. (2003) Computer technology in the social studies: An examination

of the effectiveness literature (1996-2001). Contemporary Issues in Technology and

Teacher Education, 2(4). Retrieved March 6, 2004, fromhttp://www.citejournal.org/vol2/iss4/socialstudies/article1.cfm

Wilson, J. & Notar, C. (2003). Use of computers by secondary teachers: A report from a

university service area. Education, 123(4), 695-705.Wilson, S.M., & Wineburg, S.S. (1988). Peering at history through different lenses: The role of

disciplinary perspectives in teaching history. Teachers College Record, 89(4), 525-539.Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the

evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology,

83(1), 73-87.Wynne, A. (2001). History instruction and the internet: A literature review. In D.A. Trinkle and

S.A. Merriman (Eds.) History.edu: Essays on teaching with technology (pp. 25-37). New

York: M. E. Sharpe.Yarema, A.E. (2002). A decade of debate: Improving content and interest in history education.

The History Teacher, 35(3), 389-98.

303

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/us-history/teaching-exec-sum.html



http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/us-history/teaching-exec-sum.html




Table 1

Teachers' Perceptions of the Purpose of Studying History

Rate the importance of the

following statementsregarding why students learnhistory

(n = 71) Meana,b

Very

Important

Important

Somewhat

Important

Not

Important

Connect past and present 3.72c

74.6 22.5 2.8 0.0

Acquire knowledge of basic

facts

3.41d 53.5 33.8 12.7 0.0

Develop historical inquiry 3.37d 50.7 32.9 9.6 2.9

Make historical

generalizations

3.33d 50.0 34.3 13.7 1.4

Understand America in worldhistory

3.31d

47.1 38.6 12.9 1.4

Develop a sense of time 3.11d

35.2 42.3 21.1 1.4 Note. With the exception of the Mean column, all values reported are percentages.

a4 = Very Important, 3 = Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 1 = Not Important

b Means with similar superscripts are statistically similar, means with dissimilar superscripts are

statistically different, F(5,330) = 7.99, MSE = 2.92, p. < .05.

304




Table 2

Teachers' Philosophy Regarding the Use of Historical Primary Sources

According to your philosophy,

why should students read andanalyze historical primarysources?

(n = 73) Meana,b

Very

Important

Important

Somewhat

Important

Not

Important

To create a context to develophistorical thinking skills

3.56c

61.1 33.3 5.6 0.0

To provide a sense of conditionsrelevant to the period studied

3.56c

63.0 31.5 4.1 1.4

To understand facts, concepts,and generalizations 3.51

c

59.7 33.3 5.6 1.4

To question historical truths and

engage in interpretation

3.29d 52.1 27.8 15.3 4.2

To render information needed for

success on standardized tests

2.92e 30.6 36.1 27.8 5.6

Note. With the exception of the Mean column, all values reported are percentages.


b Means with similar superscripts are statistically similar; means with dissimilar superscripts are

statistically different, F(4,236) = 13.56, p < .05.

305




Table 3

Teachers' Frequency of Primary Source Use Based on Primary Source Origination

Origin of Primary Source

Frequency of Use Textbooks

or

Ancillaries

Resource

Packets

Primary

Source

Books

World

Wide

Web

More than once aweek

36.6 21.9 31.5 38.3

Once a week 31.5 13.6 19.1 27.3

A few times a year 23.2 9.5 12.3 19.1

Never 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Note. All values reported are percentages, and rows may sum to more than

100 percent as respondents were allowed to check more than one response.

306




Table 4

Students' Frequency of Actions when Analyzing Historical Primary Sources

How often do your studentsengage in the followingactions when analyzing

historical primary sources?

(n = 71) Meana,b

Very

Often Often Sometimes

Infrequently Never

Examine source for key

individuals, events, and

ideas

3.96c 36.6 36.6 14.1 11.3 1.4

Detect and evaluate bias,

distortion, and propaganda

3.80c,d 21.9 46.5 21.1 8.5 1.4

Compare and contrast

details across multiple data

sources

3.56d 19.7 36.6 26.0 14.1 2.8

Uncover context in which a

source was created

3.06e 9.9 19.7 43.7 19.7 7.0

Assess a sourcescredibility, authority, or

authenticity

2.97e 9.9 19.7 36.6 25.4 8.5


a5 = Very Often, 4 = Often, 3 = Sometimes, 2 = Infrequently, 1 = Never


statistically different, F(4,350) = 12.85, MSE = 17.18, p < .05.

307




Table 5

Teachers' Frequency of Web-based Historical Primary Source Use for Specific Tasks

How often do you accessweb-based historicalprimary sources for each of

the following tasks?

(n = 68) Meana,b

Very

Often Often Sometimes Infrequently Never

Gain access and print out

images and text

3.69c 26.5 30.9 30.9 8.8 2.9

Identify URLs based on

specific themes for

students' use

3.38c 19.4 23.9 38.8 11.9 6.0

Identify URLs that can be

accessed in class by

students

2.99d 11.8 23.5 32.4 15.1 15.1

Cut, paste, and save

specific sections of sourcesfor later use

2.93d 15.1 15.1 29.4 20.6 17.6


a 5 = Very Often, 4 = Often, 3 = Sometimes, 2 = Infrequently, 1 = Never


statistically different, F(3, 190) = 8.69, MSE = 8.69, p < .05.

308




Table 6

Accessing of Specific Web-based Historical Primary Sources to Conduct Historical Analysis

For what reasons haveyou accessed thefollowing sites?

(n = 125)

Meana,b

Conduct

Historical

Analysis

withStudents

Obtain

Historical

Resources

forStudents

Visited,

Not Used

for

HistoricalAnalysis

Heard of

or

NeverUsed

Never

Heard

of orUsed

National Archives and

Records Adminsitrationc

2.39f

13.1 16.4 4.9 27.9 37.7

American Memoryd 1.43g 8.2 0.0 0.0 9.8 82.0

Valley of the Shadowse 1.13g 0.0 1.6 1.6 4.9 91.8


a5 = Used with students, 4 = Used for resources, 3 = Visited, not used, 2 = Heard of, never used, 1 =

Never heard of or used

bMeans with similar superscripts are statistically similar, means with dissimilar superscripts are

statistically different, F(3,190) = 8.69, MSE = 30.03, p < .05.

chttp://www.archives.gov/

d http://memory.loc.gov/

ehttp://www.iath.virginia.edu/vshadow2/

309

http://www.archives.gov/


http://memory.loc.gov/

http://www.iath.virginia.edu/vshadow2/

http://www.iath.virginia.edu/vshadow2/

http://memory.loc.gov/






Table 7

Importance of Specific Changes in Schools or Classrooms that Would Increase Teachers'

Likelihood of Using Web-based Historical Primary Sources

What school or classroom changeswould increase your likelihood of

using web-based historical primary

sources?

(n = 66) Meana,b

Very

Important

Important

Somewhat

Important

Not

Important

More computers with web access in

the classroom

3.18c 57.6 16.7 12.1 13.6

More time in the curriculum to study

historical documents

3.08c 43.0 26.2 26.2 4.6

Fewer standards and standardized tests 2.81c 36.5 25.4 20.6 17.5

More training on locating primarysources on the web

2.52d

22.2 30.2 25.4 22.2

More training on using primary sourcedocuments

2.42d

16.4 27.4 24.7 21.9

More training on using the web in my

classroom

2.02e 16.4 14.8 23.0 45.9




statistically different, F(5,211) = 11.43 MSE = 15.29, p < .05.

310




Table 8

Teachers' Perceptions of Web-based Historical Primary Sources

To what extent do you agree with thefollowing statements?(n = 68) Meana,b

StronglyAgree Agree Disagree

StronglyDisagree

The web allows access to previously

unattainable sources.

3.39c 52.2 37.7 7.2 2.9

The web is a valuable tool for

comparing sources.

3.18c,d 30.9 57.4 10.3 1.4

Using web sources increases the

variety of sources I use.

2.97d 22.4 53.7 22.4 1.5

Using web sources increases class

preparation time.

2.94d 17.4 63.8 14.5 4.3

Web sources provide richer

historical experiences.

2.92d 18.2 59.1 19.7 3.0

The web has changed how I use

primary sources in class.

2.90d 21.7 47.8 29.0 1.4

Using web sources allows for more

control over sources.

2.67d 11.9 46.3 38.8 2.9

I only use specific web sites to

access sources.

2.23e 3.0 37.9 37.9 21.2

There is no difference in teaching

with or without web sources.

2.20e 6.1 24.2 53.0 16.7

It is frustrating locating useful

sources on the web.

2.19e 7.4 27.9 41.2 23.5


a4 = Strongly Agree, 3 = Agree, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree


statistically different, F(9,313) = 21,97, MSE = 20.06, p < .01.

social studies and history teachers’ uses of non-digital

Documents